authUpdateUser

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool updates a user but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on user access), or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage note in the second. It avoids unnecessary words, but the second sentence could be more informative (e.g., explaining parameter relationships) to fully earn a score of 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (userId, enabled, labels, role) with details like enum values for 'role'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'authSetUsers' or 'authDeleteUser' beyond the basic verb, missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a score of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool, stating only to 'pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments.' It offers no explicit when/when-not instructions, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like 'authSetUsers' for bulk updates or 'authDeleteUser' for removal, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.